From "The Toronto Telegram" March 1st, 1966. The original Eaton Centre has been announced which requires the demolition of the Old City Hall. Change the names, we've got the same arguments, imploring Torontonians to "think big":


2007-09-05-1831-57_edited.jpg


2007-09-05-2116-46_edited.jpg


2007-09-05-2113-50_edited.jpg


2007-09-05-2108-36_edited.jpg
2007-09-05-2111-14_edited.jpg



2007-09-05-2103-31_edited.jpg
 
Thecharioteer:

Except that in this instance the equivalent of Old City Hall (i.e. Royal Alex) will be preserved from the outset, and can anyone imagine a Toronto without an Eaton Centre nowadays? Or on that matter - New City Hall, TD Centre, etc? Sometimes we do have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

AoD
 
Thecharioteer:

Except that in this instance the equivalent of Old City Hall (i.e. Royal Alex) will be preserved from the outset, and can anyone imagine a Toronto without an Eaton Centre nowadays? Or on that matter - New City Hall, TD Centre, etc? Sometimes we do have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

AoD

Just playing devil's advocate here because I really do like these towers. If it's true that we need to "break a few eggs to make an omelette", then what's the benchmark that we should use. How do we judge that a new proposal is important enough to demolish a part of our history?
 
I'm trying not to get too optimistic about this proposal given Toronto's history of whittling down bold efforts. The scale of this reminds me of the TD centre, I assume this will be Gery's largest project, which is appropriate considering it is his birthplace. I don't see the demolition of the theatre as a significant loss, architecturally it's quite ordinary and not nearly old enough to have historical significance. Even Stella admitted that a lot of the stuff he did for the interior is not worthy of preservation- just hang to the original stuff is what he said. There are underused theatre venues in Toronto right now, and as Mirvish said, if large theatrical shows gain popularity again he'll build another one.
 
Just playing devil's advocate here because I really do like these towers. If it's true that we need to "break a few eggs to make an omelette", then what's the benchmark that we should use. How do we judge that a new proposal is important enough to demolish a part of our history?

I wish the gehyr influence would be on john street and on duncan/ed mirvish way. Maybe they could do something on king street itself but I dont understand losing a whole block. Why not just work on the sides and improve that area and keep the good parts of the street which exists now? I understand that ripping the whole thing down gives more to work with it just seems like a bad precedent to set. After this gets proposed will restaurant row be under attack if a big enough STARchatectuer produces something? I wish this project was at the corner of front and simcoe where gehry wouldnt be sacrificing something already beautiful to create something potentially more beautiful. If I was the city there would be no way Id allow them to demolish any building on that stretch of land without at least 80% of the units sold. It would be criminal to start demolition and then the market collapse and king street is ripped of something beautiful and left with a parking lot. FYI I love the density though and I love the height. Its just the actual site itself which concerns me.
 
ttk:

Just playing devil's advocate here because I really do like these towers. If it's true that we need to "break a few eggs to make an omelette", then what's the benchmark that we should use. How do we judge that a new proposal is important enough to demolish a part of our history?

I would propose two tests:
1. Are the buildings to be demolished irreplaceable in terms of heritage, architectural or social value? If no, then:
2. Does their replacement provide significant architectural and land use opportunities that goes above and beyond the original buildings?

So according to this schema:

1. No - none of the buildings to be demolished are a) architecturally unique in the context of the city or b) serves as markers of events that are seminal to the history of the city or c) create inordinate impact on existing residents.
2. On the balance:
Pluses - dramatic increase in the intensity and diversity of land use; architecturally significant replacement structures
Minuses - loss of POW theatre and some attendant artwork; loss of existing businesses

AoD
 
Last edited:
From what I can see so far this project is exceptional in every respect. It is quite simply extraordinary. If you've got a problem with it, you hate life.

Agree. How small minded are we if we let this opportunity pass us by? Cities around the world would kill to have the chance to do something like this.

I can't even believe that losing the Princess of Wales theatre is even an issue. First of all, it's Mirvish's theatre; he can do with it what he wants. It's not nice to look at anyway. Besides, what we'd be getting is so much better for the arts overall. Imagine what it would do to OCAD's reputation to have a major space in one of the largest works ever done by arguably the most celebrated architect of the past half century? In his hometown!

Let's think beyond height and consider all the ways this will add to the city. Toronto needs more people like Mirvish, with the balls to think big.
 
Ya, but couldn't we move this great idea about 3000 feet to the south on Queen's Quay? Then we could finally have our shiny bauble on the waterfront while rejoicing in the demolition of the ugly triplets - instead of a beautiful new theatre and six heritage buildings.

As others have pointed out....it is kinda hard to develop on land you don't own. Sometimes the people who own the land notice and get a bit upset. ;)
 
As others have pointed out....it is kinda hard to develop on land you don't own. Sometimes the people who own the land notice and get a bit upset. ;)

Though as someone who lives in one of those ugly triplets I would happily give up my unit were they to offer me an equivalently sized unit in the new towers. :)
 
For what it's worth, my thoughts:

Loss of Princess of Wales If there is such an overcapacity of theatres in the city, one might wonder why Mirvish put up such a fight to prevent Dancap from acquiring the Canon Theatre. Mirvish cannot on one hand seek to be a near monopolist on mainstream theatre in the city and at the same time complain about too much theatre capacity. I'm not saying it should prevent this project from going ahead, but as someone who attends musical theatre occasionally it will be sad to see Princess of Wales go because in my view it is far superior to our other theatres. The other theatres like Royal Alex, Mirvish and Elgin are nicer to look at, but when the lights are down the Princess of Wales is a way better place to watch the show - better in my view than most Broadway theatres.

Heritage Block I'm not particularly concerned about the loss of this block. Nothing is at street level, it is either below or above (except for the theatre). The warehouses do not relate well at the sidewalk and are too close to the street. The warehouse at the corner of King and John kills the street life on John Street. I think a use of the facade as a tribute to the history of the area as a warehouse district is a good idea.

Design I'm glad to see the interesting design of the podium. One thing that really surprised me when I saw 8 Spruce in person was how boring the podium was. Something that interacts with both the King and John streets will be a dramatic improvement. Just look at the tenants currently in this stretch -- since Ed's restaurants left it has not exactly been a destination for top tenants. Philthy McNasty's anyone?

It would be nice if there was some ability to preserve some elements of the Entertainment District, such as restaurant row (whether you like the restaurants or not, it is an iconic stretch) and the stretch of restaurants/patios on John between Richmond and Adelaide. I also agree that there should be a hotel in this development. The crappiness of the Starwood and Hyatt offerings (Park Hyatt excepted) in this city continues to astound. This seems perfectly suited for a W, but even better would be to partner with Hyatt to bring them into this development, allowing for the destruction of the real eyesore in this stretch, the current Hyatt Regency.
 
For what it's worth, my thoughts:

Loss of Princess of Wales If there is such an overcapacity of theatres in the city, one might wonder why Mirvish put up such a fight to prevent Dancap from acquiring the Canon Theatre. Mirvish cannot on one hand seek to be a near monopolist on mainstream theatre in the city and at the same time complain about too much theatre capacity. I'm not saying it should prevent this project from going ahead, but as someone who attends musical theatre occasionally it will be sad to see Princess of Wales go because in my view it is far superior to our other theatres. The other theatres like Royal Alex, Mirvish and Elgin are nicer to look at, but when the lights are down the Princess of Wales is a way better place to watch the show - better in my view than most Broadway theatres.

I agree that, of all of our theatres, we are losing the best one. That said, I don't think you can criticize the general "oversupply" concern with the fight against competition as, somehow, contradictory/hypocritical. In fact, in any business, if there is a general oversupply it is better (from a business point of view) to own more/all of the oversupply yourself. Oversupply, spread across many owners, leads to price wars which lead to low margins which leads to losses. If you control/own more of the supply (speaking specifically about theatres) you can address the matter by shuttering or finding alternative uses for the theatre space. If your competition owns/controls significant parts of it they will do what competitors do...they will compete and price is the best way to compete (so they will, either/both, overpay for productions or undercharge for tickets) which can drive both entities to financial issues.

Think Canadian Airlines and Air Canada....too many seats in the air....both entities losing money......but they competed on price (meaning that the more tickets each sold the more they actually lost)....to some it was counterintuitive for Air Canada to actually get bigger by buying Canadian Airlines but the alternative was, likely, the death of both of them.

Lots of businesses (in various fields) that are facing tough economic times find the best thing to do is to grow by acquistion.

To keep this in a real estate theme.....it is one of the reasons Toronto's downtown office market withstands the threat of new supply so well. The ownership of our downtown buildings are concentrated in very few hands. The same hands that, generally, account for a significant portion of the new supply. So when tenants leave old(er) buildings for the shiny new towers the response is investment in the older towers to bring them closer to modern standards/expectations. In many other markets (a lot of US markets for example) there is a broader base of more local ownership and their response to increased competion is, often, slashing the rental rates on the older stock.


As for the Hyatt comment....I think that is just a brand...I do not think they own that property. That building was, I think, developed and is owned by Greywood. I would think the Hyatt is tied to them for a while (given how recent the re-brand was from Holiday Inn and the money spent to get to that point) by contract.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, my thoughts:

Loss of Princess of Walesthe other theatres like Royal Alex, Mirvish and Elgin are nicer to look at, but when the lights are down the Princess of Wales is a way better place to watch the show - better in my view than most Broadway theatres.


As a theater goer i would have to agree with you on the Princess of Wales. I'd say the best theater is the (Non Mirvish owned ) Toronto Centre For the Arts in North York. It's one of the most spacious, comfortable and welcoming venues i have been in anywhere in Canada. It's a real shame its so vastly under used.


I can see Mirvish building a new theater in the years to come, and going by this statement he wont build a cheap box either.

“I’m involved in theatre and art and I believe that architecture tells us who we are,†- David Mirvish.
 
Everybody is talking like this is a done deal. The theater is still there and may be for many years to come. When the shovels dig the first hole, then i'll get excited, but until then.....
Call me a skeptic, but the letdown is a much softer landing that way.
 

Back
Top